Tuesday, 6 December 2016

Britain’s decision to
leave the EU is being scrutinised by the highest constitutional court in the
land. And in doing so the case has put UK ‘democracy’ under the microscope. Eleven
unelected Supreme Court ‘Justices’ will rule on whether the UK Government has
the legal right to use autocratic, monarchical ‘Crown Powers’ to override our
elected Parliament’s right to ‘interpret’ the wishes of the British people as expressed
in a democratic referendum.

It all sounds like an episode of ‘Yes Minister’ or ‘In the Thick of it’.

The Judges insist they
are above politics and always reach their decisions based only on matters
of law – matters passed into law by Parliament and therefore political by their
very nature.

Ostensibly the case in
front of the UK Supreme Court turns on whether the Government has the right to
sign Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty triggering Britain’s formal departure from
the European Union, without going back to Parliament for permission and uses
the archaic ‘Crown Powers’ vested in the office of the Prime Minister Theresa
May by the Queen instead.

The High Court
judgement in October ruled that the power to sign Article 50 fell under the
jurisdiction of the European Communities Act 1972 passed by Westminster, as
such was a matter ‘domestic UK law’ and therefore required the assent of
Parliament. The Government on the other hand claims Article 50 of the
Lisbon Treaty falls under Britain’s International Treaty obligations and
therefore does not require Parliamentary permission as such decisions are routinely
dealt with under ‘The Crown Powers in Parliament’. Those who claim the British
monarchy is powerless and largely confined to a figurehead role might like to pay
close attention here as their view appears to be again exposed by the facts of this case.

Obscured beneath all
this legal finery is the naked politics. The High Court injunction was brought
by two wealthy ‘Remain’ campaigners, investment fund manager Gina Miller and society
hairdresser Dier Dos Santos who admit their objective was to overturn or at
least slow the entire Brexit process. Moreover the three Judges involved earlier were outspoken
‘advocates’ of a Remain vote. They are of course ‘horrified’ at the suggestion
their verdict was influenced by their political convictions insisting they are both
obliged to, and capable of, putting aside their own political opinions in such
circumstances and backgrounds. Of course!

Meanwhile the UK
Government is privately resigned to losing their Supreme Court Appeal and has
tabled a one line Short Bill for Parliament seeking Westminster’s assent to invoke
Article 50 formally in March.